It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.

I won't even lean. Go ahead push me. I won't turn into a "leaner" that can be included on one side or the other. I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.

Again, Rasmussen and Gallup continue to show a tie race, while the mainstream media polls which use D+7 ++ samples (aka 2008) show Obama in a lead. But, I have heard all morning on the radio the reporting on some new MSM poll stating that Obama is winning by 8 points in Ohio, but nothing about the fact that they are tied in the professional polls

I heard a commentator from the MSM state that they beleive their turnout ratios for 2012 are correct because of what they perceive as "demographic changes" in the democrats favor. But these are all just guesses, and are not based on any real data other than the 2008 turnout numbers. So we will continue to get the skewed polls from the MSM and will have to wait until election day to find out if they are correct.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is printing money at a rate it has never done in the past... yet the polls are tied? What sense does that make?

Less vortex, more candor, should be the watchword of the day (and while you're at it, a little atonement for the sins of 4 years ago would not be out of place on this day of all days). As it was in the beginning (when you first started paying attention to these things), and is now: this election is a choice, not an echo. Plus, the company you'd be keeping with the 'undecideds' -- too low-energy to figure anything out, too vacuous even to pay attention, hell, they don't even know what a blog is -- is not likely to be all that appealing.

Again, Rasmussen and Gallup continue to show a tie race, while the mainstream media polls which use D+7 ++ samples (aka 2008) show Obama in a lead. But, I have heard all morning on the radio the reporting on some new MSM poll stating that Obama is winning by 8 points in Ohio, but nothing about the fact that they are tied in the professional polls

Balance that with the one where Barry is up by 1 with a skew of D +10.

I heard a commentator from the MSM state that they beleive their turnout ratios for 2012 are correct because of what they perceive as "demographic changes" in the democrats favor. But these are all just guesses, and are not based on any real data other than the 2008 turnout numbers. So we will continue to get the skewed polls from the MSM and will have to wait until election day to find out if they are correct.

They're not even guesses. Barry's losing heavily in almost all demographics - Catholics, independents, etc., so this is just more FUD.

AA said It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.

If you remain undecided (that is, they stay locked in a tie in your mind, as well), then why does it surprise you that that would be the case for others, as well?

"If you push undecideds and get an answer — that is, you include "leaners" — the Obama number stays the same, and Romney goes up to 48%."

No incumbent president consistently polling under 50% (as this president has for 18 months now) has ever won reelection.

Not a single one.

Obama, of course, could be the first president to do so, but that would hinge on the American electorate having become increasingly stupid - which, sadly, the election of '08 suggests is very much a probability.

My suspicion--suspicion, mind you--is that Romney and team are going to really kick it into gear in October, and especially late October.

They have whole lot of money to spend, and have been mostly restrained except when significant issues happen that deserve comment. Meanwhile, the bad news domestically and globally has meant the Obama campaign has had to release the distractions early, like the 47% comment.

Momentum right now is meaningless--and getting ahead right now could very well mean losing the momentum by November, as the McCain campaign found.

The objective of the MSM and the basis for much of the polling bias, such as it is, is at best, wishful thinking, and most likely playing the only card left. That is to create the image of Gaffe Romney, Failed Campaigner Romney, Out of Touch Romney, all of who are behind in the polls and destined to lose---give up hope---don't bother voting.

They are unable to talk about actual positive reasons to vote for Obama.

Its also true that state polls tend to lag behind national polls. Give them a week.

I think what we have here for the undecideds is Carter/Reagan all over again. In the debates, Reagan showed that he was an avuncular kind of guy who most probably wouldn't nuke anyone two weeks after his swearing in, an image at odds with the portrayal of him by the Carter Campaign.

If Romney can show he's a decent, reasonable kind of guy who doesn't want to sell our children for spare parts to his aging rich friends, then he'll probably win.

Personally, I think the Biden/Ryan debate will be much more interesting, policy-wise.

Obama erasing all of his failures, or suddenly learning how to be president, within six weeks of the election, is an extraordinarily foolish expectation, hope, possibility, or whatever one chooses to call the nearly impossible chance "it could happen."

Sorry Ann, that's not good enough. If the mind-boggling Presidential incompetence of the last four years isn't enough, and if the fact that the graduates of your university find it almost impossible to find jobs isn't enough, I really don't know what to say to you.

If you can't figure out at this point that a random person picked off the street would do a better job as President than Barrack Hussein Obama, there isn't really much point continuing to follow your blog.

Willful ignorance in 2008 was an excuse for supporting Obama (if not a particularly good one).

New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA. Ouch. If that holds it's sayonara.

If D+10 shows up in these states, then yeah, Obama is going to win there. But, Obama didn't even get that in 2008.

The Generic ballot polls show tied races or Republicans up right now. In 2008 at this time, Dems were up +8 or even bigger on the Generic polls. How can Obama expect to get +10 in this kind of environment.

I feel like this is the first time that I've heard nearly this much talk about polls being "weighed in favor of" one party or the other (and it's always Dems). Has this always been the case with past polling, or is it different this election?

That doll was called "Anastasia." Are you saying Anastasia was a communist?

That's not a doll of the princess, that's a image from life of Anastasia Mikoyan, wife of the inventor of the Mig fighter and famed winner of the "Beauty of Soviet Labor" award in 1951. She really did wobble like that. It was a fashion at the time...

1. undecided always break away from the incumbent by a large margin2. There is a serious Bradley factor. I bet even, or especially in a town like Madison, everybody thinks that Obama has a lot more votes than he will get in the ballot box.

PS: be prepared for a lot of Dem trama when the Polls say Obama is going to win and even the exit polls say he won, yet the ballot results go for Romney.

I've been commenting for months that a divided government would be an acceptable outcome, too... that is an Obama re-election, with the Republicans taking full control of Congress.

I'd rather see a Romney win because he would inspire confidence in the business sector.

An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself.

A Republican Congress would keep Obama in check with regard to borrowing and spending.

"It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."

Yes, in a behavioral sense, but "change" in this case is hardly radical, except in that Romney has proven himself competent as an executive, and Obama has proven himself incompetent as one.

Sure, electing Romney shifts the direction of state toward the right, but it won't nearly be equal to the lurch to the left that electing Obama was.

So while it may be "conservative," it would also be highly irresponsible. In modern times (since the Truman Administration) the second terms were markedly less successful than the first term. This is unlikely to change; for Obama, it would mean "failure" becomes "miserable failure."

Some may think there's enough tire on the tread to coast through four more years of trillion dollar deficits, 8+% unemployment, erosion of family wealth, dissolution in the Middle-East, crony capitalism, entrenching the looming failure of Obama-care, but there is not.

If you think what we have now, and the way things are trending is good, or at least tolerable, then yeah, Obama is your man.

I hope most Americans, like they did with Jimmy Carter before, decide this is unacceptable, and realize Obama has no chance, no hope of fixing it.

There's nothing in his history, his ideology, to suggest he is at all capable of responding appropriately to these problems. He hasn't the previous four years - why would he now?

The "liberals" have never been this desperate before. They've been to the mountaintop and have seen the Promised Land, and it is hard to be told they can't enter but must go back for another 40 years in the desert.

An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself.

There is nothing in the past four years that would lead one to believe this would be coming in the next four years.

More likely, Obama would continue to paint himself as the victim of intransigent Republicans who talk about him like he's a dog.He could use his secretaries to issue waivers, as he has done these past four years, to continue to financially favor his preferred groups.The financial problems could wait another four years, for the next guy.

If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.

If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.

That certainly has to be considered.

What's the proportion now of American blacks who come from southern roots and more recent immigrant blacks from Africa and the Caribbean?

The big question is will QE3 be enough to save Obama from the timing of the upcoming market downturn. It is pretty obvious that most of the world is in or is going into recession. But, the market has remained up mostly because of the expected and now annouced money printing. Money printing wasn't just annouced here, but also in Japan and Europe. Stock market traders are betting that the money printing will go into stocks, or they are hoping that people will believe it is going into stocks... What happens if this turns out not to be the case. We may find out in a few weeks.

Either way we are all messed up in the long run. Howe can the government possibly pay 5% interest on $20 trillion of debt. Its just not posssible. The only outcome will be lots of inflation.

"An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself."

Expecting this three-bank shot is has hopeful as expecting Obama to be better in his second-term than he was in his first.

It won't lead to shattering preferences and quotas: two generations have come to expect that as birthright - it is the same as telling all Americans they will no longer enjoy the Social Security or Medicare. Dependency takes make forms, and is hard to break voluntarily in individuals, more probably impossible for social cohorts.

Black voting blocks will rally around government benefits, not public policies oriented toward "natural conservatism of black society."

""It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."

That explains Obama vote #2, not #1.

Maybe it's too late already. The medical clinics and hospitals are planning for a big shitstorm in the next 2 years. It's gonna get very ugly. It's unclear whether anything can stop it. Patients are already angry about limited access, especially the elderly.

But thinking things are bad so let's do the next other thing that becomes available... that's not guaranteed either.

Isn't that what pretty much what you said was the main reason you voted for Obama? Obama's record contradicted most of what he said, but his "promise" was so much better than the alternative which was so status quo. Isn't that what you said?

Well then, Prof. I won't try to sway you. On the other hand, as one who prides herself, justifiably, on having a keen ability to analyze problems from a legal point of view, I now have at least colorable reason to doubt your ability to weigh evidence and come to a just and fair decision based on that evidence, and your justifiable pride is no longer quite so justifiable.

This ain't legal crap, my dear professor, it may well be the survival of our constitutional republic in the balance. This is not just one third-tier practicing attorney's opinion. Some of your professional peers (blog wise as well) believe the same thing.

The reason why it stays that way is confirmation bias. The pollsters make their models to confirm their bias. Their bias is not in favor of Romney, but they keep biasing the polls to help Obama. Romney wins by 5% nationally.

The liberal media doesn't need to conspire to unanimously come to the same conclusions.

These are pollsters that do this for a living, and their reputations are on the line. Anything is possible I guess, but I highly doubt they all got together and colluded on releasing poll results that are wildly off.

"It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."

Voting for a 2nd term of Obama is voting for radical change: locking in, permanently, radical change that hasn't fully kicked in yet (Obamacare). And we're sure to experience much more 2nd term "flexibility."

A 2nd term of Obama isn't "staying with what we have now." In a 2nd term, Obama (no longer concerned about re-election) will go further doing what he promised-- to "fundamentally transform America."

Ann Althouse said... I've decided not to decide until I have to decide.

I'm quite decisive. I make decisions just in time.

I don't put energy into early decisionmaking that might require rethinking.

So how is it difficult to understand most people who hadn't made up their minds a week ago feel basically the same. Most Americans feel this way.

This isn't reflected in the polls because for most Americans there really isn't a decision being made. Most Americans, if they're honest, know today which party's candidate they're going to vote for in 2016. Maybe 15% of Americans can even remotely be considered swing voters.

I think quite a few of the female electorate view Obama as their fantasy boyfriend and like many of their real life boyfriends have sorely disappointed them. The ladies nevertheless always seem to find some reason, no matter how trivial or absurd, to give that disappointing fella one more chance.

Indeed, why decide before we see who has the deeper, more resonant voice and who can spout the most reasonable line of bullshit? Who cares about the last four years? Let's just hear Barry's golden throat again.

Wise woman, plus it's fun seeing folks here squirm.

It isn't wise. It's profoundly trivial.

And I don't care who Althouse votes for. It won't affect me one way or another. But if she does vote for Little Black Jesus again, she deserves everything - good or (almost to a certainty) bad - that happens as a result of that decision.

I've decided not to decide until I have to decide. ...I prefer to make my decision while walking to the polling place on election day.

If someone believes that this country is worth so little that the only effort they are willing to exert is just enough to cast an informed vote, then your strategy makes sense.

If someone truly appreciates this country, and all that it offers them, then I would expect them to determine if the country would be noticeably better off under one candidate or the other, and if so, use their influence to persuade others to vote the same way.

Kevin - If you can't figure out at this point that a random person picked off the street would do a better job as President than Barrack Hussein Obama, there isn't really much point continuing to follow your blog.

Buh bye, Kevin!!If you haven't figured out half the country thinks Obama is better for them than the Republicans, half do not, you have not been very cognitive the last year.....and following Althouses blog, even NFL scores is a waste of time because nothing really sinks in.

There are quite intelligent people that look at their lives...perhaps they are government employees or disabled and benefiting from government programs....that consider Obama a rational choice.Conversely, a coal company management employee will think his whole life and career is at risk under Obama/

Sometimes the country is united by all being effected by miserable failure. Jimmy Carters 21% inflation hit everyone, George Bush's inattention to economic and fiscal affairs while he focused on the Heroes Helping the Noble Iraqi Freedom Lovers.

I have to question the polls mainly because there is far less enthusiasim for Obama this round, the GOP ticket this time is far better than the 2008 joke that was put up, the economy is tettering on the brink, foreign policy is a shambles and somehow Obama is up 10 in three battleground states? Sorry that doesn't pass the smell test.

Case in point, the embassy attacks, our Libyan ambassador murdered, a devastating loss in Afghanistan yet the media is largely silent on it yet they found plenty of time to air Romney's 47% 'gaffe'.

" If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.

That certainly has to be considered."

Have you heard the Howard Stern interviews ? Tell me how that works with a perceived black natural conservatism.

When I was a child, I knew blacks who were only one generation from, or had been born in the south. They had a natural conservatism but that was 70 years ago.

"I am an efficient decisionmaker, not someone who has trouble making decisions. I'm just fine at it."

I can appreciate that. But I find it also consumes mental resources to remain indeterminate. I can always revisit my decision later, if something unexpected happens. It would have to be very, very unexpected at this point to make me vote for Obama.

Case in point. Moderate Republican Tommy Thompson runs with the Tea Party crowd to curry favor, has to say a bunch of unpopular shit to win the primary. When will these guys realize that ending Medicare/Medicaid and screwing with Social Security isn't even that popular with rank and file Republicans?

What is it you want four more years of, Ann? What has Obama promised that makes you think his next four years will be a success? Woodward said Reagan or even Clinton would have gotten the debt deal done. What makes you think that Obama has suddenly developed more of an ability to work with congress? What has changed in him and when exactly did that change take place?

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voiceIf you choose not to decide you still have made a choiceYou can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can killI will choose a path that's clear - I will choose free will

Seriously Ann, this isn't jury duty. You don't have to wait until closing remarks are over with.

In 2008 there wasn't an incumbent. There wasn't an established cabinet and policies - all that would change with the winner.

In 2012 there is an incumbent. There is an established cabinet.

Firing Obama also means firing his cabinet and other administration officials. We get rid of Obama we get rid of Clinton, Geithner, Napolitano, Sebelius, LaHood (we have to ban cell phones in cars completely! It's for the children!!!1111!!11!), Holder, Vilsack, Lisa Jackson at EPA, Susan Rice at UN, Jay Carney, and more...

I've read and heard the explanations for why the newspaper/TV polls sprinkle in more Democrats to match turnout models. I've worked with polls professionally so I even understand what they are saying, the jargon they are using.

But I still don't get it. It seems like a flawed process at best. If you're going to rebalance demographic factors, shouldn't the balancing be against a constant value, not one that literally goes up and down like a window-blind from election to election?

You can't guess the next number in the series if you're starting from the turnout differential in 04, 06, 08, and 10. It bounces crazily from a strictly numerical point of view. But these pollsters think they can guess and further are insisting their guess is correct. But they never convincingly explain why they think their guess is correct.

You haven't given any math. Perhaps that's why voters aren't inclined to believe it? Whatever the math is, it's really stupid politically to just say "we'll end Medicare as we know it because we think it's going under anyway".

Actually, I did and you simply chose to ignore it, or just believe we haven't hit our fourth consecutive trillion dollar annual deficit.

If you Google Medicare Trustee report 2012, you will see they state Medicare and SS are not sustainable under current conditions and modifications to the programs are necessary. If that's ending Medicare as we know it, then so be it. The Trustee report reads as if Ryan had written it.

It's a shame that some folks still don't understand, or choose to ignore, the relationship between national tracking polls of the potential popular vote and electoral college strategy. Polls are trending in Obama's favor. Most polls, and polling averages, show Obama ahead in the "battle ground" States, except for North Carolina. Even there, however, three of the most rrecent polls show Obama ahead of Romney in North Carolina (+2, +4, +4), and a fourth (YouGov) show Obama moving into a tie (46% vs. 46%). Only Rasmussen has Obama trailing, and that poll is stale (from 9/13).

I am afraid that as unpleasant as shiloh may be.....he does have a point.

The dear lady takes a stance here and there to keep her fanboys happy but she is a liberal without any real conservative impluses. Pro abortion. Pro gay marriage and every part of the gay agenda not matter how out there.

Face it. A liberal is a liberal.

Her stances that differ are merely to draw hits and comments. It is that simple.

Well I see the numbers don't mean anything to you so I'll concede the fact that partisan loyalty trumps reality in your case. I guess if siding with the party of Nothing to See Here helps you sleep at night, who am I to question.

The dear lady takes a stance here and there to keep her fanboys happy but she is a liberal without any real conservative impluses. Pro abortion. Pro gay marriage and every part of the gay agenda not matter how out there.

Face it. A liberal is a liberal.

Her stances that differ are merely to draw hits and comments. It is that simple.

Or maybe it’s just that Althouse really, really doesn’t want to go with a loser, and right now she’s more than a little shaky on who’s going to win. So, what the hell, why not wait until the walk to the polling place to decide.

I cannot believe you could even consider voting for BO again. The economy, the jobless rate, the total lack of foreign policy while the world burns. Not to mention he is trying to suppress the Catholic Church with the HHS mandate. I am absolutely done with your blog and using your portal for Amazon. You really are a lib, and I do not like nor read lib blogs, ever.

The polls show Romney and Obama in a dead heat and you guys are surprised a moderate voter is still undecided between them?

There are some people dumb enough to think she's a conservative, and others dumb enough to think she's a liberal, but everything about her voting history and blog commentary says "independent". You just tend to forget, because (a) she lives in an extremely left-wing city and (b) the current President is extremely left-wing as well. So most of her current comments come from the right of the person she's talking about.

All of these posts yapping about the "tied" race were posted on a day when Gallup had Romney 44% and Obama 50%. Real Clear has Obama up 4, Intrade has Obama at 75.4% chance of winning and FiveThirtyEight's projection is 81.9%.

If @edutcher can't rally a win for Romney in Ohio then Mitt needs to win both North Carolina and Florida to have a chance at victory. Florida isn't looking so hot for Mitt right now, but could swing in his favor in the end. North Carolina looks to Mitt's to lose right now, but the most recent polls show NC as with a slight edge in Obama's favor. edutcher needs to get on the telephones.